Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SPECIAL
FOURTEENTH (14th) DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455

Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus -
JEFFREY MARCOS y ANDUYAN,
Accused-Appellant.
Members:
CRUZ, R.A., Chairperson,
ATAL-PAÑO, P.S.T., and
ALIÑO-GELUZ, E.R.,* JJ.

Promulgated:
February 16, 2021
x------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Cruz, R.A., J.:

THE CASE

This ordinary appeal, filed under Rule 122 of the Rules of

Court, seeks to reverse and set aside the Joint Decision 1 dated
November 20, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, Branch 14, Manila (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. R-
MNL-17-03970-CR and R-MNL-17-03971-CR, the dispositive portion
of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Accused JEFFREY

MARCOS y ANDUYAN is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt in the following:

1. Violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act

No. 9165 also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php500,000.00)
PESOS in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR;
and

2. Violating Section 11[3], Article II of Republic

Act No. 9165 also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 2 of 19
DECISION

of 2002, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to

suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years [and] one (1)
day to fourteen (14) years [and] eight (8) months and
to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(Php300,000.00) PESOS in Criminal Case No. R-
MNL-17-03971-CR.

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED.2

THE ANTECEDENTS

Two Informations, both dated September 27, 2017, were filed

against Jeffrey Marcos y Anduyan (Marcos) charging him with
violations of Republic Act No. 91653 (RA 9165) or the
“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” to wit:

In Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, for violation of Section

5, Article II, RA 9165—

That on or about September 26, 2017, in the City of Manila,

Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell,
trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet subsequently marked as “JAM” 09/26/17
with signature containing ZERO POINT ZERO SIX FOUR (0.064)
gram of white crystalline substance, containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride[,] a dangerous drug.4

In Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03971-CR, for violation of Section

11, Article II, RA 9165—

That on or about September 26, 2017, in the City of Manila,

Philippines, the said accused, without being authorized by law to
possess any dangerous drug, did there and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his
custody and control one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
with subsequent marking as “JAM-1” 09/26/17 with signature
containing ZERO POINT ZERO SEVEN SIX (0.076) gram of white
crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug.5

The public prosecutor filed a Motion for Consolidation 6

explaining that the two criminal cases were “closely related to and
inextricably interwoven with each other” and “founded on the same
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 3 of 19
DECISION

facts and/or forming part of a series of offenses of similar character

which may be tried jointly” and that “the prosecution will be presenting
common evidence in these cases.” 7 The Motion for Consolidation was
granted in an Order8 dated October 20, 2017.

On October 27, 2017, Marcos, assisted by counsel de officio,

was “arraigned by reading to him the Information[s] in a language or
dialect known and understood by him.” 9 Marcos pleaded 'not guilty' to
both offenses charged.10

After the arraignment, the Pre-Trial immediately followed on the

same day. The parties stipulated on the following:

1. Accused JEFFREY MARCOS y ANDUYAN is the same

person charged in the Informations;
2. Jurisdiction of this [c]ourt over the person of Accused
JEFFREY MARCOS y ANDUYAN and over the nature of the
offense (Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)[,]
Jurisdiction of this [c]ourt over the person of Accused
JEFFREY MARCOS y ANDUYAN and over the nature of the
offense (Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)[;]
3. PO2 JONATHAN BAUTISTA is the Investigator-On-Case
and that he prepared the following documents:
a. Letter Request for Inquest Proceeding dated 26
September 2017[,]
b. Authority to Operate dated 25 September 2017[,]
c. Pre-Operation Report dated 25 September 2017[,]
d. Request for Ultra-Violet Powder Dusting dated 25
September 2017[,]
e. Spot Report dated 26 September 2017[,]
f. Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized dated 26
September 2017[,]
g. Request for Laboratory Examination dated 26
September 2017[,]
h. Request for Medical Examination dated 26
September 2017[,]
i. Request for Ultra-Violet Examination on the Buy Bust
Money dated 26 September 2017[,]
j. Joint Affidavit of Apprehension and Complaint [of]
PO1 ANJOE PESIGAN and PO1 PHIL ANDREI
FALLARCO[,]
k. Affidavit of Poseur Buyer PO1 ANJOE PESIGAN[,]
l. Affidavit of Investigator PO2 JONATHAN C.
BAUSTISTA dated 26 September 2017[,]
m. Chain of Custody Form dated 26 September 2017[,]
n. Turn-Over of Arrested Suspects dated 26 September
2017[,]
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 4 of 19
DECISION

o. PNP Arrest and Booking Sheet of JEFFREY

MARCOS y ANDUYAN dated 26 September 2017[,]
p. Photographs[,]
q. Certification issued by PSUPT RUBEN DELA RAMA
RAMOS dated 26 September 2017[;]
4. The camera of the precinct was used in taking the
photographs and the computer printer of the precinct in
printing the pictures[;]
5. PO2 JONATHAN BAUTISTA has no personal knowledge as
to the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest of the
accused[;]
6. PO2 JONATHAN BAUTISTA has no personal knowledge as
to the source of the specimen that was turned over to him[;]
7. Qualification and expertise of PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS
REYES in the field of Forensic Chemistry[;]
8. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES is presently employed as
forensic chemist at Crime Laboratory, Office Headquarters,
MPDCLO, United Nations Avenue, Ermita, Manila with the
duty of determining whether or not a certain specimen
contain dangerous drugs[;]
9. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES received from PO1
ANJOE PESIGAN dated 26 September 2017, two (2) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet[s] each containing white
crystalline substance with the following markings and
recorded net weights: (a) “JAM”, 0.064 grams (sic); and (b)
“JAM-1”, 0.076 grams (sic), all with signature and date
09/26/2017[;]
10. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES examined the white
crystalline substance in the above-mentioned plastic
sachet[s], and [they] yielded positive result[s] for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug[;]
11. After the examination, PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES
sealed the specimen[s] in a clear plastic xxx[;]
12. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES reduced into writing his
findings in Chemistry Report No. D-2292-17 dated 26
September 2017, where he can identify his signature and
the specimen[s] he examined as the one[s] he received from
PO1 ANJOE PESIGAN dated 26 September 2017[;]
13. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES brought the following:
a. Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit “G”)[,]
b. Chemistry Report No. D-2292-17 (Exhibit “H”)[,]
c. Chain of Custody Form (Exhibit “O”)[,]
d. Plastic sachet with marking JAM (Exhibit “T”)[,]
e. Plastic sachet with marking JAM1 (Exhibit “U”)[;]
14. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES has no personal
knowledge as to the actual commission of the crime[;]
15. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES has no personal
knowledge as to the source of the specimen[s] submitted for
laboratory examination.11
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 5 of 19
DECISION

Thereafter, trial ensued during which the prosecution presented

Police Officer 2 Jonathan C. Bautista (PO2 Bautista) and Police
Officer 1 Anjoe A. Pesigan (PO1 Pesigan), while the defense
presented the accused himself, Marcos.

Version of the prosecution

On September 25, 2017, at about 7:40 pm, a confidential

informant came to the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Sta.
Mesa Police Station to report that an alias “Jeff,” subsequently
identified as Marcos, was engaged in activities involving illegal drugs.
The confidential informant personally relayed the tip to PO1 Pesigan,
who had previously come across the name of Marcos, as the latter
“[wa]s one of [the] drug personalit[ies]” known to the police. 12

PO1 Pesigan shared the information with his station

commander. Subsequently, a briefing was conducted for a possible
buy-bust operation. PO1 Pesigan was assigned to pose as buyer. As
part of the preparations for the buy-bust, PO1 Pesigan received a two
hundred peso bill to be used as buy-bust money. He marked the
money by placing “SDET” on the upper right portion of the bill and
submitted the same to the crime laboratory for powder-dusting. After
receiving the powder-dusted bill, PO1 Pesigan returned to the police
station for the preparation of the Authority to Operate 13 and the Pre-
Operation Report.14

On September 26, 2017, at around 1:35 am, the buy-bust team,

composed of around twenty police officers, proceeded to the target
area at “Old Sta. Mesa corner San Lorenzo” where, according to the
confidential informant, Marcos would be selling illegal drugs between
1:00 am and 2:00 am. As soon as PO1 Pesigan and the confidential
informant arrived at the target area, the confidential informant
introduced PO1 Pesigan, who was pretending to be a buyer, to
Marcos. Then, Marcos asked PO1 Pesigan, “[T]ol magkano[?]” PO1
Pesigan replied, “[D]alawang piso lang[.]” Marcos took out from his
pocket a small plastic sachet containing suspected shabu and
handed it over to PO1 Pesigan in exchange for the marked money.
PO1 Pesigan put the plastic sachet he bought from Marcos in his
small right pocket. After the exchange, PO1 Pesigan gave the pre-
arranged signal of scratching his head to alert his fellow police
officers that the transaction had already been completed. 15

PO1 Pesigan grabbed Marcos and identified himself as a police

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 6 of 19
DECISION

officer. The rest of the buy-bust team came towards Marcos and PO1
Pesigan. They introduced themselves as police officers and assisted
PO1 Pesigan in placing Marcos under arrest. They informed Marcos
of his violation and his constitutional rights. PO1 Pesigan frisked
Marcos to check if he had any deadly weapon on him. The police
officer found none. He then instructed Marcos to empty his pockets.
When Marcos emptied his pockets, there came out the buy-bust
money and another sachet of suspected shabu. PO1 Pesigan seized
both items from Marcos. He placed the money on his right pocket and
the other sachet of suspected shabu in his back pocket.16

A commotion started to build up in that “bystanders were

suddenly approaching [the buy-bust team.]” To avoid getting hurt in
the commotion, the police brought Marcos to the police station. From
the place of the arrest to the police station, PO1 Pesigan was in
possession of the items recovered from Marcos. At the police station,
PO1 Pesigan marked the plastic sachets of suspected shabu
recovered from Marcos. He marked the sachet he bought from
Marcos with the latter's initials, “JAM.” He likewise marked the other
sachet seized from Marcos with “JAM-1.” He affixed the date,
“09/26/2017,” and his signature as part of the marking. He marked
the sachets and took photographs of the same in the presence of
Marcos, a barangay kagawad and a media representative. The
barangay kagawad and the media representative signed the Receipt
of Property/Evidence Seized17 prepared by the police.18

After the marking and inventory of the evidence at the police

station, PO1 Pesigan brought Marcos to the Ospital ng Sampaloc for
medical examination. From the police station to the hospital, the
evidence were with PO1 Pesigan. After Marcos' medical check-up,
PO1 Pesigan brought him and the object evidence to the Crime
Laboratory Office of the Manila Police District (“MPD Crime
Laboratory Office”). PO1 Pesigan submitted the two plastic sachets of
suspected shabu to the MPD Crime Laboratory Office with the
request that these be examined for the presence of dangerous
drugs.19 Police Senior Inspector Jeffrey Reyes, forensic chemist at
the MPD Crime Laboratory Office, received the specimens from PO1
Pesigan.20 PO1 Pesigan likewise turned over Marcos and the buy-
bust money to the MPD Crime Laboratory Office with the request that
the money and Marcos himself be examined for the presence of
ultraviolet powder.21

The MPD Crime Laboratory Office subsequently issued

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 7 of 19
DECISION

Chemistry Report No. D-2292-1722 indicating that specimens A and B,

referring to the sachets of white crystalline substance marked “JAM”
and “JAM-1” respectively, contain Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.23 The MPD Crime Laboratory Office also issued
Chemistry Report No. PI-301-17 24 with the conclusion that ultraviolet
powder is present on the marked money and “on the dorsal and
palmar portions” of both hands of Marcos.25

Version of the defense

Accused Marcos denied the charges against him and advanced

a different account of his arrest. Marcos recalled that on September
26, 2017, between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm, he was eating at a
“tapsilogan” which was three houses away from his residence. While
he was eating, several individuals approached him from the back,
introduced themselves as police officers and asked him where he
was from and why he was not wearing a shirt. Marcos replied that he
was a resident of the area and acknowledged that he was not
wearing a shirt. He was at that time only wearing a pair of basketball
shorts.26

The police officers asked him to stand up and began frisking

him. They frisked him on the waist and thighs, but did not recover
anything from his possession. Then, they boarded him on their
vehicle and brought him to the precinct. Marcos thought that he was
going to be detained for not wearing a shirt in public. He claimed that
the police officers did not inform him of the charges against him. It
was only during the inquest proceedings when he learned that he
was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs.27

Ruling of the RTC

In its Joint Decision28 dated November 20, 2018, the RTC

found Marcos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges. 29 The
RTC ruled that the elements of both illegal sale and illegal possession
of dangerous drugs were proven by the prosecution. 30

The RTC explained that an illegal sale of dangerous drugs took

place between Marcos and PO1 Pesigan, viz.:

The records show that the accused sold and delivered illegal
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 8 of 19
DECISION

drug to the police officer acting as a poseur-buyer. The plastic

sachet containing white crystalline substance, which was seized
and found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug, was identified and offered in evidence. 31

As to the charge of illegal possession of a dangerous drug, the

RTC held that:

It is without doubt that Exhibit “V”, the other heat-sealed

transparent plastic sachet with marking “JAM-1” 09/26/17 with
signature containing 0.076 gram[,] when submitted for laboratory
examination tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.

As clearly testified by PO1 Pesigan, [a]ccused Marcos when

asked to empty his pocket was caught in possession of another
transparent plastic sachet containing the prohibited drug. 32

Aggrieved by the verdict of the RTC, Marcos filed a Notice of

Appeal33 on December 10, 2018, which was given due course by the
RTC in an Order34 dated January 11, 2019.

THE ASSIGNED ERRORS

Accused-Appellant Marcos ascribes the following errors to the

RTC:

I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [HIM] OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 9165, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
ESTABLISH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT A BUY-BUST
OPERATION ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.

II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [HIM] OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 9165, DESPITE THE ARRESTING TEAM'S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, AS
AMENDED.

III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
PROSECUTION ESTABLISHED AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF
CUSTODY OF THE CORPUS DELICTI.35
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 9 of 19
DECISION

The accused-appellant disagrees with the three main findings of

the RTC, namely: (1) “he was arrested in a legitimate buy-bust
operation;” (2) the prosecution was able to establish [his] sale and
possession of illegal drugs xxx;” and (3) “the integrity of the seized
items was preserved.”36

First, Marcos questions the failure of the prosecution to present

in court the confidential informant who supposedly assisted the police
in the buy-bust operation. The confidential informant did not testify in
court. Neither was there a stipulation on his testimony. Hence, “the
crucial stage that supposedly set into motion the resulting transaction
was not established.”37 Stated differently, the evidence of the
prosecution was “incomplete to establish the alleged sale and to
conclude that the accused-appellant was indeed arrested after having
sold shabu.”38

Second, the accused-appellant scored the buy-bust team for

failing to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 requiring the presence of
the insulating witnesses during the buy-bust operation. 39 For the
accused-appellant, “[t]he absence of these [witnesses] during the buy
bust operation not only taints the evidentiary value of the contraband
seized, but also sows doubt that a buy bust operation happened.” 40

Third, Marcos believes that contrary to the finding of the RTC

that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were preserved, the
prosecution failed to prove the second and fourth links in the chain of
custody of the subject dangerous drugs. 41 Marcos points out that the
prosecution did not offer any relevant testimony on, first, how the
seizing officer safeguarded the confiscated drugs “before and during
the transmittal of the evidence to the investigator-on-case” 42 and,
second, “what happened to the seized items after [the forensic
chemist] examined [them], until [they] reached the trial court.” 43

The accused-appellant maintains that his defense “should not

have been simply brushed aside by the trial court.” 44 He ends that his
“conviction cannot be sustained as there is no proof beyond
reasonable doubt of his guilt.”45

OUR RULING

We grant the appeal.

While We do not completely agree with all of the accused-

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 10 of 19
DECISION

appellant's assigned errors, We find merit in his primary contention

that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. In particular,
We cannot readily subscribe to his act of equating the non-
presentation of the confidential informant involved in this case with an
illegitimate buy-bust operation. However, We do find merit in his other
claims that the police failed to comply with the procedure laid out in
RA 9165 and the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti had been
compromised.

Marcos was charged with the crimes of illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, respectively defined and penalized
under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The dangerous drugs
itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the
illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs. Hence, the duty to
prove the corpus delicti of the illegal sale or possession of dangerous
drugs is as important as proving the elements of the crime itself. 46
There should be no doubt or uncertainty as to the identity and
integrity of the dangerous drugs.47

To establish that the identity and integrity of the dangerous

drugs have been duly preserved, the chain of custody rule has been
adopted as a method of authenticating evidence and as way of
ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.48 Demonstrating the chain of custody involves
presenting testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a
way that every person who touched the exhibit would be able to
describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which
it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain
to have possession of the same.49

In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous

drugs, the prosecution is required to establish four links in the chain
of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drugs recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drugs seized
by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drugs to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 11 of 19
DECISION

submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic

chemist to the court.50

The People, represented in this appeal by the Office of the

Solicitor General, submit that “the prosecution successfully proved
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were well-
preserved, thus establishing the most important factor in the chain of
custody rule.”51 However, even a cursory look at the evidence reveals
a dearth of details especially those pertaining to measures that the
police observed in order to preserve the corpus delicti.

For the first link in the chain of custody, Section 21 (a) 52 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 requires that
the marking, inventory and picture-taking of the drug evidence be
conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. Hence, these
must be done at the place of the arrest.53

Here, PO1 Pesigan testified that the entrapment team decided

to forego the marking, conduct of inventory and taking of photographs
at the place of arrest. Instead, they brought Marcos and the object
evidence to the police station and accomplished the aforementioned
tasks thereat. Asked as to what prompted this decision, PO1 Pesigan
replied that “a commotion happened.”54 He added that “[p]eople,
bystanders were suddenly approaching [them].” 55 PO1 Pesigan and
the rest of the police team “t[hou]ght that our team might be hurt or
even the accused might be hurt so we brought him to [the] police
station[.]56

While the IRR of RA 9165 makes room for non-compliance with

the procedure for inventory and photographing, two requirements
must be met before any non-compliance is excused. First, there
should be justifiable grounds for the non-compliance; and second, the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items should be
properly preserved. Failure to show these two conditions renders void
and invalid the seizure of and custody of the seized drugs. 57

The prosecution has failed in demonstrating that the two

requisites concur in this case. The ground invoked, i.e., there was a
commotion and people were suddenly approaching the buy-bust
team, is unacceptable especially in the context of a carefully-planned
operation where, by PO1 Pesigan's own account, the on-site team
was composed of around twenty police officers.58
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 12 of 19
DECISION

It has been held that a buy-bust team's excuse of the existence

of a commotion was not a justifiable reason for failing to conduct the
inventory at the place of seizure. 59 In People v. Cornel,60 the police
officer's explanation of an ensuing commotion was found insufficient
and unjustifiable because the team who arrested the accused was
composed of eight police officers. Such number of armed police
operatives could have easily contained a commotion. 61 They should
have been able to conduct the marking and inventory at the place of
seizure.62 This is all the more true in this case where there were
twenty police officers in the field for the entrapment operation.

Aside from failing to provide a justifiable ground for non-

compliance with the procedure outlined in RA 9165 and its IRR, the
prosecution also failed to show that the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items had been properly preserved.

Still in relation to the first link in the chain of custody, PO1

Pesigan stated that as soon as the simulated sale was
consummated, he put the plastic sachet he bought from Marcos in his
small right pocket. Then, after placing Marcos under arrest, PO1
Pesigan recovered the buy-bust money and confiscated another
sachet of suspected shabu from Marcos. PO1 Pesigan placed the
money in his right pocket and the other sachet of suspected shabu in
his back pocket.63 The two sachets of suspected shabu were not
immediately marked, inventoried and photographed but were
transported to the police station. Instead of detailing the safeguards
observed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the two
sachets of suspected shabu while in transit from the place of arrest to
the police station, the testimony of PO1 Pesigan merely provides that:

Q How did you bring the suspect to PS-8?

A We carry him to our motorcycle (sic), Ma'am.

xxx xxx xxx

Q How about the evidence[,] where was it at that time?

A It's in my pocket, Ma'am.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Who was in possession of the evidence from the place of the

arrest to the police station?
A I did (sic), Ma'am.64

It bears emphasis that at this point of the operation, the two

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 13 of 19
DECISION

sachets of suspected shabu, both miniscule in amount, have not yet

been marked. Narcotics, by nature, may easily be mistaken for
everyday objects. The physical similarity of narcotics with everyday
objects facilitates their adulteration and substitution. It also makes
planting of evidence conducive. 65 Otherwise stated, the likelihood of
tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when
the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics
fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people
in their daily lives.66 Hence, when witnesses are testifying on the
chain of custody of dangerous drugs, it is necessary for them to
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have possession of the same. 67

The statement that PO1 Pesigan was always in possession of

the confiscated items seems impressive on the surface, but is
actually unsatisfactory when measured using the foregoing
guidelines. Worse, the prosecution's silence with respect to the
precautions taken to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized
narcotics is repeatedly manifested when describing other stages of
the operation. To illustrate, after the two sachets of suspected shabu
were marked, inventoried and photographed at the police station,
they were not immediately brought to the MPD Crime Laboratory
Office for examination. PO1 Pesigan testified that he first brought
Marcos to the Ospital ng Sampaloc for a medical examination, viz.:

Q There is no chronology in your narration[. Y]ou did not

mention that you submitted the accused for medical
examination[. W]hich happened first[:] you brought him to the
police station for the marking and inventory of the evidence?
A Yes, Ma'am.

Q When did you physically examine him at the hospital? (sic)

A After the marking of evidence[,] we brought him to the
Ospital ng Sampaloc and then after that[,] he was with us
when we brought him to the crime lab, Ma'am.

Q Who was in possession of the evidence from the place of the

arrest to the police station?
A I did (sic), Ma'am.

Q You also mentioned you brought the accused to the Ospital

ng Sampaloc?
A Yes, Ma'am.

Q Where was the evidence at that time?

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 14 of 19
DECISION

A It's with me, Ma'am.

Q After that[,] you also said that you brought the accused and
the evidence to the crime lab?
A Yes, Ma'am.

Q Who was in possession of the evidence at that time?

A It's still with me, Ma'am[.]68

Similar to what happened earlier, the two sachets of suspected

shabu were again transported, this time, from the police station to the
Ospital ng Sampaloc, and then, from the Ospital ng Sampaloc to the
MPD Crime Laboratory Office. All that the prosecution could offer in
describing the status of the physical evidence while in transit from
one place to the next was that these were in the possession of PO1
Pesigan. The prosecution kept harping on the fact that the sachets of
suspected shabu were always in PO1 Pesigan's possession.
However, this alone is sorely inadequate. Without any effort to
delineate the precautions taken by PO1 Pesigan, especially when the
seized items were being transported thereby exposing the same to a
multitude of factors that would endanger their integrity, it is too difficult
to rest assured that the identity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated items have been preserved.69

We view with the same unease the prosecution's presentation

of the fourth link in the chain of custody. The fourth link, We repeat, is
the turnover and submission of the seized and marked illegal drugs
from the forensic chemist to the court.

In this case, the prosecution resorted to the common practice of

dispensing with the forensic chemist's in-court testimony during trial.
Instead of actually calling the forensic chemist to the witness stand,
the parties merely stipulated on the following:

xxx xxx xxx

8. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES is presently employed as

forensic chemist at Crime Laboratory, Office Headquarters,
MPDCLO, United Nations Avenue, Ermita, Manila with the
duty of determining whether or not a certain specimen
contain dangerous drugs[;]
9. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES received from PO1
ANJOE PESIGAN dated 26 September 2017, two (2) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet[s] each containing white
crystalline substance with the following markings and
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 15 of 19
DECISION

recorded net weights: (a) “JAM”, 0.064 grams (sic); and (b)
“JAM-1”, 0.076 grams (sic), all with signature and date
09/26/2017[;]
10. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES examined the white
crystalline substance in the above-mentioned plastic
sachet[s], and [they] yielded positive result[s] for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug[;]
11. After the examination, PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES
sealed the specimen[s] in a clear plastic xxx[;]
12. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES reduced into writing his
findings in Chemistry Report No. D-2292-17 dated 26
September 2017, where he can identify his signature and
the specimen[s] he examined as the one[s] he received from
PO1 ANJOE PESIGAN dated 26 September 2017[;]
13. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES brought the following:
a. Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit “G”)[,]
b. Chemistry Report No. D-2292-17 (Exhibit “H”)[,]
c. Chain of Custody Form (Exhibit “O”)[,]
d. Plastic sachet with marking JAM (Exhibit “T”)[,]
e. Plastic sachet with marking JAM1 (Exhibit “U”)[;]
14. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES has no personal
knowledge as to the actual commission of the crime[;]
15. PSI JEFFREY ABERGAS REYES has no personal
knowledge as to the source of the specimen[s] submitted for
laboratory examination.70

While the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist, PSI

Jeffrey Abergas Reyes, includes a statement that after examining the
specimens, he sealed the same in a clear plastic, the rest of the
stipulations are “bereft of any detail as to who exercised custody and
possession of the seized items after their chemical examination and
before they were offered as evidence in court” 71 and “no evidence
was adduced to show specifically how [the crime laboratory] handled,
stored, and safeguarded the seized shabu pending its offer as
evidence.”72 In instances like this, where the evidence presented by
the prosecution failed to reveal the identity of the person who had
custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and
pending presentation in court, the prosecution was found to have
failed to establish the chain of custody. 73

The chain of custody requirement is extremely important

because, We reiterate, in dangerous drugs cases, the dangerous
drugs itself constitutes the corpus delicti.74 And, when there are weak
links in the chain of custody, the conviction of an accused must be
reversed because “[t]he presence of these circumstances quantify as
reasonable doubt involving the most important element in drug-
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 16 of 19
DECISION

related cases—the existence of the dangerous drug itself.” 75

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED,

and the November 20, 2018 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 14, Manila, in
Criminal Case Nos. R-MNL-17-03970-CR and R-MNL-17-03971-CR,
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, Jeffrey Marcos y Anduyan is ACQUITTED of both

charges in said criminal cases, and the Director General of the
Bureau of Corrections and the Superintendent of the New Bilibid
Prison are DIRECTED to cause his IMMEDIATE RELEASE unless
he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this court,
within five (5) days from notice, the action taken.

Alternatively, if Marcos has not yet been transferred to the New

Bilibid Prison, the order to immediately release him and to report the
action taken devolves to the Warden of the Manila City Jail, the last
facility to exercise custody over the accused-appellant. 76

SO ORDERED.

RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PERPETUA SUSANA T. ATAL-PAÑO

Associate Justice

EMILY R. ALIÑO-GELUZ
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 17 of 19
DECISION

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Fourteenth Division

*
Acting Third/Junior Member per Office Order No. 40-21-RSF dated February 2, 2021.
1
Penned by Presiding Judge Buenaventura Albert J. Tenorio, Jr., Appendix “A” in the Brief for
the Accused-Appellant, Rollo, pp. 54-66.
2
Ibid. at pp. 65-66.
3
“An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic
Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, As Amended, Providing
Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes.”
4
Information, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 3.
5
Information, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03971-CR, p. 1.
6
Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 2.
7
Id.
8
Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 1.
9
RTC Order dated October 27, 2017, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p.
46.
10
Id.; see also Certificate of Arraignment, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-
CR, p. 45 and Certificate of Arraignment, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03971-CR, p.
36.
11
RTC Order dated October 27, 2017, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR,
pp. 46-48.
12
TSN dated February 12, 2018, p. 4; see also Affidavit of Poseur Buyer, Exhibit “M” for the
prosecution, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 23.
13
Exhibit “B” for the prosecution, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 10.
14
Exhibit “C” for the prosecution, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 11.
See also TSN dated February 12, 2018, pp. 5-7.
15
TSN dated February 12, 2018, pp. 7-9, 5.
16
Id., pp. 9-10.
17
Exhibit “C” for the prosecution, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 14.
18
TSN dated February 12, 2018, pp. 10-12, 14.
19
Exhibit “G” for the prosecution, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 15.
20
Exhibit “O” for the prosecution, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 26.
21
Exhibit “J” for the prosecution, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 19.
See also TSN dated February 12, 2018, pp. 12-14.
22
Exhibit “H” for the prosecution, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 16.
23
Id.
24
Exhibit “K” for the prosecution, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 20.
25
Id.
26
TSN dated September 11, 2018, pp. 3-4.
27
Id., pp. 4-5.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 18 of 19
DECISION

28
Supra note 1.
29
Supra note 1 at p. 65.
30
Supra note 1 at pp. 61, 62.
31
Supra note 1 at p. 62.
32
Supra note 1 at p. 63.
33
Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 101.
34
Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR, p. 102.
35
Brief for the Accused-Appellant, Rollo, pp. 37-38.
36
Id., p. 42.
37
Id., p. 43.
38
Id., p. 43.
39
Id., pp. 44-45.
40
Id., p. 46.
41
Id., p. 47.
42
Id., p. 48.
43
Id., p. 48.
44
Id., p. 50.
45
Id., p. 50.
46
People v. Calates, G.R. No. 214759, April 4, 2018.
47
People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018.
48
People v. Del Mundo and Lacson-Del Mundo, G.R. No. 208095, September 20, 2017;
People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017.
49
People v. Del Mundo and Lacson-Del Mundo, supra note 48, citing Malilin v. People, 576
Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
50
People v. Del Mundo and Lacson-Del Mundo, supra note 48, citing People v. Breis, 766
Phil. 785. 803 (2015).
51
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, Rollo, p. 95.
52
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or
at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items[.]
53
People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
54
TSN dated February 12, 2018, p. 10.
55
Id.
56
Id.
57
People v. Sood, G.R. No. 227394, June 6, 2018.
58
TSN dated February 12, 2018, p. 7.
59
People v. Sood, supra note 57.
60
G.R. No. 229047, April 16, 2018.
61
Id.
62
People v. Sood, supra note 57.
63
TSN dated February 12, 2018, pp. 8-10.
64
TSN dated February 12, 2018, pp. 11, 14.
65
People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018.
66
Id., citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
67
People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 231787, August 19, 2019.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12455 Page 19 of 19
DECISION

68
TSN dated February 12, 2018, p. 14.
69
Cf. People v. Macaumbang and Sagarbaria, G.R. No. 208836, April 1, 2019.
70
RTC Order dated October 27, 2017, Records in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-17-03970-CR,
pp. 47-48.
71
Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014, 725 Phil. 499.
72
People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017.
73
People v. Macaumbang and Sagarbaria, G.R. No. 208836, April 1, 2019, citing People v.
Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 236 (2010).
74
People v. Enad, G.R. No. 205764, February 3, 2016, citing People v. Quebral, 621 Phil.
226, 233 (2009).
75
People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 225690, January 17, 2018.
76
In a Resolution dated November 19, 2020 (Rollo, p. 112), We noted the Manifestation
Compliance (Rollo, pp. 108-109) filed by the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 14, Regional Trial
Court of Manila informing Us that a Mittimus/Commitment Order (Rollo, pp. 110-111) for the
transfer of Marcos to the New Bilibid Prison was served upon the Manila City Jail on November 3,
2020. However, We have not received word as to whether or not the Manila City Jail was able to
transfer Marcos to the National Bilibid Prison pursuant to the Mittimus/Commitment Order.